18 January 2003
Why attack Iraq?
Nowadays, in order to justify an attack on Iraq, some people still insist Saddam Hussein being evil as the reason. It sounds persuasive, but it is irrelevant. Why? Because, whether he was in 1990 a threat or continues to be a threat was relevant to what the United Nations has already decided to do about the situation, namely that U.N. resolution to impose an economic sanction on Iraq until the latter has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction.
The task at hand is to determine whether Iraq has done so and to ensure Iraqi compliance with this U. N resolution. So, whether Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a threat to regional peace is no longer a factor to be considered right now in deciding on whether Iraq should be attacked. It was just about the only factor causing the U. N. to arrive at that resolution to disarm Iraq. Since a formal decision was already so made to deal this issue of threat which did not call for a war or regime change but only a sanction, using Saddam Hussein being evil as an excuse to attack Iraq is to cleverly and blatantly overturn and violate that first U. N resolution respecting Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait .
Under that U.N. mandate, actions can be taken only to ensure compliance, not regime change. Hence, so long as that objective can be accomplished, no more force than is necessary is allowed. Once compliance is assured, any act of violence or war can be in itself an act of aggression, or at least not an act of peace whether or not endorsed by the U. N. It is like being an act of crime for a police to hang a thief sentenced by court to only five days in jail.
Right now, when the U. N inspectors have full access to any site in Iraq, even if Iraq has undeclared weapons of mass destruction being uncovered by the team, there is no need for war. They can be destroyed under U.N. supervision. There right now is a de facto U N occupation of Iraq without actual bombing or armed invasion. As long as the UN inspectors' work can continue without Iraq armed resistance, Iraq can be totally disarmed without deploying one single U.N. peacekeeper into Iraq, much less bombing Iraq into dust. Any one waging a war under the circumstances on Iraq loves war, not peace, and has motives other than disarming Iraq according to that first U.N. resolution.
When there is no cause for war in the interest of regional or global security, nor any need for it, attacking Iraq to kill millions more surely serves somebody's greater interests. I wonder what could they be? Revenge? Influence? Domination? Or, as some have been speculating, oil? Only future events could tell. If you find them to confirm my predictions, don't say I never told you so.
27 January 2003
If right at the outset and in the end war is a certainty irrespective of the outcome of the inspections, there would have been no reason nor freedom on Iraq's part to allow in the U. N inspectors to begin with. Why? Because, if Iraq is given a clean bill of health and the U.S. A. still attacks, it means and proves the American intention being not to just disarm Saddam Hussein but to replace him. If so, only the mentally most retarded would allow in these U. N inspectors to pinpoint for the U.S. A. bombing targets for the impending war.
If so, the U.N. would have become an American instrument of war, not a body of international peace. Both the U. N and the U.S. A. must keep their promise to attack only if Iraq has been proven to conceal and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, it would have been more prudent for Iraq and other similar nations in the future just to fight a war without having an advance team of enemy military spies to give out all its juicy bombing targets just before the war. There is a limit to stupidity on the one hand and cleverness on the other. If the internationals especially the U.N. are to observe international morality and promote peace, they should never trick any nation or individual into giving away self-defensive secrets for an easy annihilation.
It's not easy for Iraq to have cooperated to the extent it has. If there has been any evasive actions, should we not also extend a greater or should I say, an absolute guarantee that there would be no war without evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
If the U.S. A. goes ahead with a war without evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, permanent U. N. Security members have that obligation to veto any American motion to attack Iraq. Let the U.S. A. wage wars outside the U. N umbrella. It's a superpower and it can do whatever it likes. But do not let it use the U. N to serve only its own national interests.
But if the U.S. A. wants to have U.N. sanction for its actions, it would have to abide by U N security resolutions all the way, not just going along with what it dictates to it or what pleases the USA.
For the same issue, the U. S. A. cannot get the U. N to do its advance work under the false pretense of weapons inspections only to attack Iraq for sure irrespective of the inspection outcome and further U.N. resolutions to resolve the same issue by as peaceful a means as possible. Otherwise, the U.S. A. would have cleverly used the U. N to win a war which it, the USA net intended to avoid at all. It's a clever military maneuver but an extremely dishonest and dishonorable way of conducting international affairs, never any honesty. How could others ever deal with you in the future in an honest manner? There is no honor among thieves. But is the U.S. A. a thief?
29 January 2003
A permanent
U. N. inspection team in Iraq
At this point in the progress of the case against Iraq, people unfortunately have overlooked the necessary and sufficient victory already achieved by the U.N. actions against Iraq. As I said in my earlier article no reason to attack Iraq, the degree of cooperation given by Iraq to the U. N weapons inspectors is similar to a nation already defeated by war. There is no need for a further war to achieve this kind of objectives. Quite to the contrary, this success should be secured as the golden opportunity for a thorough destruction of whatever weapons of mass destruction Iraq may or may not have.
The U. N inspectors are already there. Should we withdraw them, wage and fight a war, and send in a same type of agents under different names only to do the same job? It does not sound intelligent to me.
One of U N Chief Inspector Hans Blix's chief complaints was the lack of proof that Iraq indeed had destroyed its earlier stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But of course, as a matter of common sense, it's difficult if not impossible for anyone to prove that he or she has destroyed or lost something. It's a matter of veracity.
Our suspicion or distrust however justified by the other party's past behavior or by our own self-righteousness, is merely our own state of mind, just our own suspicion or distrust or even paranoia, not in any way the proof of the other party's guilt. Otherwise, every innocent individual can be locked up or murdered just because someone in power suspects that they are guilty. That would be tyrannical indeed.
When the U.N. right now can already totally disarm Iraq, why would people want to fight an unnecessary and senseless brutal war to kill hundreds thousands if not millions before disarming it?
Besides, would the job of looking for and destroying weapons of mass destruction whether or not in existence be easier at all after a pulverizing mad attack on an already rather impoverished and relatively backward nation facing massive famine while being bombed into thin air? The answer has to be no. Those knowing anything at all about anything may have been sent into Heaven already by the war itself.
Unlike in other types of situations where time is of essence such as to reverse a war of aggression, the present situation does not require war or any other drastic measure for immediate implementation to prevent anything. Rather, time must be given to the U.N. inspectors to ensure Iraqi compliance. Isn't it suicidal to deny the U. N inspectors the chance to check on Iraq and over-impatient to fight a quick and yet unavoidably cruel war instead?
Since the only way to ensure that I have indeed destroyed incriminating evidence against you is to search all my premises and accessible properties, the U.N. weapons inspectors not only shouldn't be given a U. N. deadline, but contrariwise should be given an indefinite or indeterminate life on Iraqi soil. To be honest, if there is no threat of impending war, it should be Iraq, not the U.N., wanting to give the inspectors an immediate deadline. .
If the inspectors can be given an indefinite time frame to continue searching and monitoring Iraqi weapons programs, how could Iraq get away with having or making weapons of mass destruction?
In that event, only if Iraq kicks out or militarily threatens or harms the inspectors would there be material breach justifying ever contemplating the use of force. If people distrust the Iraqis, surely U.N. peacekeepers can be dispatched to escort the U. N inspectors. Why use a machine gun to kill a little ant? A little twist of a finger would do!
1 February 2003
War
on Iraq: A second UN resolution?
If we are to label U. N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (passed
in November 2002) Resolution No. 1, controversies surround
the issue of whether a second Resolution is needed for the U.
S. A. to take military actions against Iraq.
On the one hand, U. S. President George Bush insists that there
is no such a need. Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien shares
the same view with a significant twist. He would go to war with
the U. S. A. only when authorized by the U. N., implying as it
happens to be the case that George Bush would judge for himself
whether Saddam Hussein has materially breached Resolution No.
1 and attack Iraq without U. N. Security Council concurrence that
there indeed has been a material breach and that war is the serious
consequences Iraq must suffer in case of material breach as spelt
out in Resolution 1441.
2 February 2003
On the other hand, in a surprising move, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair in his 31st January 2003 Council of War meeting with
George W. Bush insisted on a second U. N. Resolution before attacking.
Here I quote from page one of National Post, February 1,
2003.
" Under pressure from his closest ally, Britain's Tony Blair,
George W. Bush said yesterday he would give the United Nations
the chance to authorize the use of force against Iraq, but insisted
the United States would go to war anyway if the world body refused.
. . . , he made it clear he felt Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously
in November, gives the international community the right to intervene
if Iraq does not disarm.
" Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution,
it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent
upon disarming Saddam Hussein, " he said, " But 1441
gives us the authority to move without any second resolution,
and Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm,
for the sake of peace, we along with others will go disarm Saddam
Hussein. "
Looked at more carefully, Blair's and Chrétien's positions
are rather similar though not identical. When Chrétien
would not join the U. S. A. in a unilateral action against Iraq,
it means that the U.S. A. must have U.N. sanction for war against
Iraq before Canada would join the coalition force. Yes, Resolution
1441 is sufficient, but another vote has to be taken on whether
Iraq has violated it to justify suffering the serious consequences
of non compliance. Furthermore, while it had been understood that
the serious consequences referred to by Resolution 1441 is war
against Iraq, it is not written anywhere that serious consequences
in such a U. N. resolution must necessarily mean war and it would
be dangerous just for the United States alone to dictate that
serious consequences can mean nothing but war. That certainly
is exactly what the U.S. A. wants us to accept or recognize. But
that could not have been the spirit or intent of the U.N. Security
Council as a whole when it unanimously adopted that resolution
with that specific wording " serious consequences "
instead of " war. "
This is particularly so the case when prior to passing the resolution
many nations on the U. N. Security Council had reservations. Finally
they agreed on the wording " serious consequences "
which in the minds of those against war definitely did not stand
for war.
Even Bush himself was well aware of this fact when he spoke after
his meeting with Blair: " he made it clear. . . Resolution
1441. . . gives the international community the right to intervene
if Iraq does not disarm. "
He did not say that Resolution 1441 gives the U. S. A. the right
to attack Iraq in the sense of waging a war to conquer it.
Therefore, a vote on whether the U. N. should go to war with Iraq
under resolution 1441 must deal with 2 issues: 1. Has Iraq weapons
of mass destruction and is Iraq thwarting U. N. Inspectors' efforts
so that the U. N cannot disarm Iraq without resorting to more
drastic measures? against Iraq.
On the one hand, U. S. President George Bush insists that there
is no such a need. Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien shares
the same view with a significant twist. He would go to war with
the U. S. A. only when authorized by the U. N., implying as it
happens to be the case that George Bush would judge for himself
whether Saddam Hussein has materially breached Resolution No.
1 and attack Iraq without U. N. Security Council concurrence that
there indeed has been a material breach and that war is the serious
consequences Iraq must suffer in case of material breach as spelt
out in Resolution 1441.
2 February 2003
On the other hand, in a surprising move, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair in his 31st January 2003 Council of War meeting with
George W. Bush insisted on a second U. N. Resolution before attacking.
Here I quote from page one of National Post, February 1, 2003.
" Under pressure from his closest ally, Britain's Tony Blair,
George W. Bush said yesterday he would give the United Nations
the chance to authorize the use of force against Iraq, but insisted
the United States would go to war anyway if the world body refused.
. . . , he made it clear he felt Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously
in November, gives the international community the right to intervene
if Iraq does not disarm.
" Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution,
it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent
upon disarming Saddam Hussein, " he said, " But 1441
gives us the authority to move without any second resolution,
and Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm,
for the sake of peace, we along with others will go disarm Saddam
Hussein. "
Looked at more carefully, Blair's and Chrétien's positions
are rather similar though not identical. When Chrétien
would not join the U. S. A. in a unilateral action against Iraq,
it means that the U.S. A. must have U.N. sanction for war against
Iraq before Canada would join the coalition force. Yes, Resolution
1441 is sufficient, but another vote has to be taken on whether
Iraq has violated it to justify suffering the serious consequences
of non compliance. Furthermore, while it had been understood that
the serious consequences referred to by Resolution 1441 is war
against Iraq, it is not written anywhere that serious consequences
in such a U. N. resolution must necessarily mean war and it would
be dangerous just for the United States alone to dictate that
serious consequences can mean nothing but war. That certainly
is exactly what the U.S. A. wants us to accept or recognize. But
that could not have been the spirit or intent of the U.N. Security
Council as a whole when it unanimously adopted that resolution
with that specific wording " serious consequences "
instead of " war. "
This is particularly so the case when prior to passing the resolution
many nations on the U. N. Security Council had reservations. Finally
they agreed on the wording " serious consequences "
which in the minds of those against war definitely did not stand
for war.
Even Bush himself was well aware of this fact when he spoke after
his meeting with Blair: " he made it clear. . . Resolution
1441. . . gives the international community the right to intervene
if Iraq does not disarm. "
He did not say that Resolution 1441 gives the U. S. A. the right
to attack Iraq in the sense of waging a war to conquer it.
Therefore, a vote on whether the U. N. should go to war with Iraq
under resolution 1441 must deal with 2 issues: 1. Has Iraq weapons
of mass destruction and is Iraq thwarting U. N. Inspectors' efforts
so that the U. N cannot disarm Iraq without resorting to more
drastic measures?
2. If more drastic measures must be taken by the U.N. or serious
consequences must be suffered by Iraq, what should they be?
A second vote to deal with various issues before war on Iraq under
Resolution 1441 certainly would be required in the Chrétien
scheme resulting in a decision which Blair called the second resolution.
Therefore, Blair and Chrétien share the same position in
substance though not in form on war on Iraq after Resolution 1441.
In sharp contrast, as quoted in the above, George Bush would declare
war on Iraq over U.N. objections. The USA shall alone determine
the two key points mentioned in the above, namely, whether Iraq
has to be punished according to Resolution 1441 and that the U.S.
A. dictates that the only meaning serious consequences can
have is war.
Yes, Bush did unequivocally reassert his objective being to disarm
Saddam Hussein. No longer on the 31st of January 2003 did he mention
" regime change, " or " Saddam Hussein welcome
to live in exile. " If indeed that is so the case, any course
of U.N. or American action against Iraq would be strictly limited
to whatever is necessary to achieve disarmament, not replacing
Saddam Hussein with an U.S.- backed government. There is and there
would be a great distinction between the type of action taken
for each scenario. That in fact remains to unfold and to be seen.
3 February 2003
Another crucial point to emphasize is the need to get messages
across on both sides. If indeed as it appears to be the case Iraq
no longer has any weapons of mass destruction, Iraq should do
its utmost to ensure that the world is convinced of it. Right
now, Iraq has failed to do so. It would be tragic indeed to have
a war of mass destruction just because Iraq has failed to present
the truth for all to see. Absolute cooperation, not any unwarranted
or unwise evasive actions resembling hide and seek, is what is
needed of Iraq.
I say that now only because both Bush and his Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the last three days have stuck to " getting
rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, " not " regime
change. " That's why it's now safe for Iraq to do everything
possible to make its case transparent even and particularly to
the most suspicious minds.
As a prime example of how dangerous misunderstandings, not any
real weapons of mass destruction could be the trigger point to
kill millions of Iraqis, while a few days ago President Bush was
airing his fear of potential Iraqi nuclear threat in his State
of the Union address, couple days later in Canada a former top
Iraqi nuclear scientist convincingly disclosed the truth that
during the 1991 Gulf War the Iraqi nuclear facility was bombed
out of action. The whole program was then dismantled, the scientists
let go, etc. Otherwise, how could he such a chief nuclear scientist
be there in Toronto teaching high school?
While the fear in Bush's mind might have been or was genuine,
it has no foundation in fact. It's like fearing something unknown
or non-existent. In fact, this is only a part of the pattern.
As predicted in my December 23rd 2002 article No
reason to attack Iraq, the so-called
suspected sites since that day given over to the U. N inspectors
from the U. S. A. were checked out to contain no smoking guns.
So, the USA merely suspects and misidentifies innocent locations
as top secret potential locations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Because of this poor track record, whatever further top secret
sites the U.S. A. now can speculate about or advance as proof
in favor of attacking Iraq should be dismissed as unreliable and
subject to verification to the contrary.
4 February 2003
Since the U. S. information has been invariably proven false,
it would be extremely dangerous to promote George Bush's "
the United the state's would go to war anyway if the world body
refused. " It's a case of the blind leading the world or
going all alone into a war of annihilation. Are other members
of the U. N. Security Council inferior, unable to see as well
as or even better than the U. S. A. whether Iraq has disarmed
or the consequences of this particular war on Iraq? Or, does that
world body just want to disarm while the U.S. A. wants to do more
than that to Saddam Hussein?
However, since the stake is too high, an almost inevitable war
whether or not out of mere suspicion, Iraq must provide transparent
proof that there is no reason for this kind of suspicion. So long
as this suspicion is there, Iraq should have to succeed in dispelling
it.
Only after there ceases to be any ground for suspicion, or if
the U.S.A. disallows time for the U.N. inspectors to search the
suspected sites being constantly put forward by the U.S.A. would
any war effort on Bush's part be proof of his desire to conquer
Iraq for reasons more than just disarmament.
3 February 2003
A glimmer of hope came on February 1st, just two days ago, from
the U.N. Chief Inspectors' accepting Iraq's invitation to return
to negotiate and clarify, reflecting the possibility that Iraq
had acceded to their precondition for the visit. Hopefully, at
least if any war on Iraq comes later, it cannot be due to miscommunication
between the two sides.
In as serious a situation as this, there is no room for misunderstanding
nor any right to be wrong. It is insufficient that it indeed has
disarmed. Iraq must further get this message across to convince
the world of its disarmament. At the same time though, the U.S.
A. must allow this process to convince it of Iraqi disarmament
and not simply persist in its own hitherto unsupported suspicion
or disbelief--- disbelieving that Saddam Hussein has indeed disarmed
in accordance with earlier U.N. resolutions. Like I said before,
to kill out of paranoia is tyranny, and to conquer out of greed
is barbarity. The U.S. A. being a modern superpower certainly
should not be either tyrannical or barbaric, or stupid and therefore
unable to communicate.
Do not forget George Bush said " if he does not disarm, for
the sake of peace, we will go disarm Saddam Hussein." If
so, why invade Iraq if it has already disarmed? Let's find out
whether indeed it has done so before unleashing the terror of
mass destruction on those poor helpless Iraqi millions.
Let's stick to Bush's justification for war, namely " for
the sake of peace, " not " for the sake of war. "
For the sake of peace, surely we must avert any unnecessary war.
Otherwise, are we doing anything for the sake of peace? We would
be contrariwise doing something or everything for the sake of
war. We shouldn't be saying one thing while doing the exact opposite.
Some dangerous " experts " predicted a war on Iraq would
last only three months, from March to June of this year. This
reminds me of the American confidence on Vietnam: a few months
were enough to defeat the Vietcongs. Yes, no U.S.S.R. or China
is to help Iraq. But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein has
six to seven million militia ready for war. If they put up a death
struggle which is likely, how many millions must be killed before
Iraq can be taken in peace? It can be taken but not easily in
peace under American occupation. While in the case of Vietnam
it was " peace with honor, " in the case of Iraq it
might turn out to be a disastrous case of "weeping in the
bloody hell of victory." Oil fields and trailing smoke rising
from the burning ashes of Baghdad are all that's left of a once majestic ancient centre
of Arab civilization. Perhaps that's what some people want- just
oil, no more Arabs. "For the sake of peace," we give
you hell!
What should we consider in this second vote or second resolution?
Kuan-Chyun Cheng©2003
Authorized for use by UN security Council members & Iraq to
resolve this conflict
February 6, 2003 War on Iraq: a matter of consequence
Table of
contents